1 2025:CGHC:1815 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 571 of 2018 Shankar Pushpakar S/o Shri B. R. Pushpkar Aged About 43 Years R/o H. No. C-50, Radhaswami Nagar, Bhatagaon Road, Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. Kamlesh Bahukhandi S/o Shri Parsuram Bahukhandi Aged About 45 Years R/o House No. 1, College Road, Choubey Colony, Police Station Azad Chowk, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. The State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. … Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. D.K. Gwalre, Advocate. For Respondent No. 01 : Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No. 02/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. D.K. Gwalre, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Vinayak Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 01 and Mr. Amit Verma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No. 02/State. 2. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.01.13 15:39:40 +0530 2 Procedure , 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) the petitioner seek to challenge the order dated 27.01.2018 passed by the Court of 4th Additional Judge, Raipur to the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) passed in Cr. Rev. No. 525/2017, whereby the learned revisional court dismissed the criminal revision, holding that it was not maintainable. 3. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner began publishing a monthly magazine called "Indian States" in March 2012, after securing the necessary permissions and registrations from the relevant authorities. The petitioner appointed Respondent No. 1 as the Chief Editor. However, Respondent No. 1 collected approximately Rs. 2,25,000/- from the petitioner on multiple occasions, claiming the funds were for various expenses, but failed to provide any accounting for these transactions. 4. The petitioner, being the owner of the magazine, opened a bank account (No. 3182351460) at the Central Bank of India, Civil Lines Branch, Raipur (CG), on May 31, 2015, in the name of "Indian States". The magazine generated income from various advertisements and other sources, which were deposited into this account. However, Respondent No. 1/ Accused fraudulently opened another bank account in the same name, "Indian States", at IDBI Bank, Samta Colony, Raipur (CG). Without the petitioner's knowledge or consent, Respondent No. 1 collected various payments (totaling approximately Rs. 6,65,000/-) and deposited them into his IDBI bank account. This act constitutes cognizable offenses punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 3 406/408 of the Indian Penal Code. When confronted, Respondent No. 1 failed to provide satisfactory explanations and continued to evade the issue. Consequently, the petitioner was compelled to seek relief from the competent court of law. 5. On September 10, 2015, the petitioner submitted an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., along with an afÏdavit, to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Raipur (CG). The application prayed for directions to the concerned police station to conduct a necessary investigation. However, the learned Magistrate declined to direct an investigation, instead opting to conduct an inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. During this inquiry, five witnesses were examined, including the petitioner, to support the complaint. Despite the petitioner and other witnesses corroborating the allegations in the complaint, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint on October 16, 2017, deeming the dispute to be related to the magazine's income. 6. The petitioner challenged the order dated October 16, 2017, in Criminal Revision No. 525/2017 before the learned revisional Court. However, instead of examining the legality, propriety, or correctness of the impugned order, the revisional Court dismissed the revision on technical grounds, holding it to be not maintainable, vide order dated January 27, 2018 . It is respectfully submitted that the orders dated October 16, 2017, passed in the unregistered complaint case, and January 27, 2018, passed in Criminal Revision No. 525/2017, are entirely unwarranted, uncalled for, and perverse, given the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 4 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Hon'ble Court, vested with inherent and extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., has the power to make necessary orders to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice. Therefore, this Court is empowered to set aside the impugned order dated January 27, 2018, and quash the order dated October 16, 2017, in the interest of justice. He further submits that although the revision petition against the trial Magistrate's order was dismissed, this circumstance does not affect the maintainability of the instant petition. The merits of the order dated October 16, 2017, were not examined by the learned Revisional Court. This Hon'ble Court, with unrestricted inherent powers under Sections 482 and 483 of the Cr.P.C., has superintendence over its subordinate courts and is not precluded from entertaining this petition. He further submits that the learned Revisional Court ought to have appreciated that the trial Magistrate treated the application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. as a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and proceeded to conduct an inquiry under Section 202, examining five witnesses on oath. The learned Revisional Court failed to consider the scope of Sections 397 and 399 of the Cr.P.C. and appears to have been misguided by the nomenclature of the application. The impugned order (Annexure-P/1) is contradictory, as the Court held that the Magistrate proceeded under Sections 200 and 202 but dismissed the revision based on the application's nomenclature. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in these peculiar circumstances, the learned Revisional Court ought to have 5 examined the merits of the case instead of relying on technicalities. The learned Magistrate ought to have appreciated that the complainant/petitioner and supporting witnesses prima facie established the allegations, warranting legitimate prosecution of the proposed accused/Respondent No. 1. The learned Magistrate ought not to have made findings on the nature of the dispute without examining the merits and subjecting the preliminary evidence to cross-examination. It is respectfully submitted that, in light of the foregoing grounds and submissions, the impugned orders - dated January 27, 2018 (Annexure-P/1) in Criminal Revision No. 525/2017, and dated October 16, 2017 (Annexure-P/2) in the unregistered complaint case - are bad in law, illegal, and unjust. Therefore, they deserve to be set aside/quashed. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 01 submits that the petitioner has alleged that he started a magazine named "Indian State" in 2012, along with the respondent, whose ofÏce is situated at C/50 Radhaswami Nagar, Raipur. The respondent allegedly suggested that the petitioner start this magazine and introduced himself as a teacher at Pragati College Raipur, a journalist, and the owner of Prime Look Magazine. The petitioner registered the magazine, invested his entire savings, and opened an account in the name of Patrika Indian State at Central Bank of India, Civil Lines Raipur. Furthermore, it is alleged that the respondent, as the magazine's editor, secretly opened an account at I.D.B.I. Bank without authorization and received all the advertisement money, thereby cheating the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner 6 initially filed a complaint at the concerned police station and then with the Superintendent of Police, Raipur. The complainant then submitted an application under Section 156(3) before the J.M.F.C Raipur. After scrutinizing the facts, the court decided to investigate the case itself, instead of ordering the registration of an F.I.R, and fixed a date for evidence. The Court correctly pointed out that it had no jurisdiction to convert an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C to a complaint case under Section 200 Cr.P.C without the informant's consent. Since the informant agreed and did not object to recording evidence, the court proceeded accordingly. After examining the evidence, the court dismissed the petitioner's allegations against the respondent, citing a lack of cognizable offense. He further submits that the revisional court rightly stated that the plaintiff had not challenged the order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C but rather the order under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C, which was made after a detailed investigation and ample opportunity given to the complainant. 10. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 02/State supported the orders passed by the learned trial Court as well as learned revisional Court. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the prayers and pleadings made in the petition along with the annexures annexed in the petition. 12. From the perusal of the order passed by the trial Court, it transpires that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to initiate cognizance 7 against respondent No. 1 and to register a crime. The trial Court, on 10/09/2015, ordered that "after carefully examining the application and the documents attached thereto, it appears that there is a dispute between the parties regarding payment and transaction of money, and therefore, instead of directing the police station to register a crime under Section 156(3) CrPC, it is appropriate for the court to conduct an investigation itself. Thus, the trial Court took up the application filed by the petitioner under Section 156(3) CrPC for investigation under Section 200 and 202 CrPC, instead of directing the police to register an FIR and investigate. This means that the police were not directed to register an FIR and investigate. Section 156(3) CrPC provides for the discretion of the judicial magistrate to order an investigation. In this case, the learned judicial magistrate conducted an investigation himself, instead of ordering an investigation. 13. The petitioner did not challenge the order dated 10/09/2015 passed under Section 156(3) CrPC. Instead, the petitioner challenged the order passed after investigation under Section 200 and 202 CrPC. The trial Court provided an opportunity for a fair hearing before passing the order. The order passed by the trial Court on 16/10/2017 was not an order passed under Section 156(3) CrPC. Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner and the order challenged by him are contradictory. Since no order was passed under Section 156(3) CrPC on 16/10/2017, the revision petition filed by the petitioner was not maintainable. Moreover, after conducting an investigation itself, the Court cannot direct the police 8 to register a crime. Therefore, the impugned order of the revisional Court is just and proper. 14. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the impugned order passed by the revisional Court as well as learned trial Court, I am of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned revisional Court as well as the learned trial Court does not call for any interference and accordingly, the present petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek